On Valentine’s Day, American husbands and wives of every age, faith and region shower their
beloveds with symbols of undying affection — flowers, chocolates, moonlit dinners, kisses.

The annual lovefest is also a popular time for elaborate engagements, with picturesque proposals
and pricey jewelry.

But any link between love and matrimony is relatively recent, said Stephanie Coontz, who teaches
history and family studies at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash.

And a radical one at that.

“Through most of human history, love was not at all the point of marriage,” Coontz said. “
Marriage was about getting families together, which was why there were so many controls.”

The notion that a couple would marry for love was considered almost antisocial, even subversive;
parents could disown their children for doing it.

“The Greeks thought lovesickness was a type of insanity, a view that was adopted by medieval
commentators in Europe,” Coontz writes in her 2005 book,
Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage.

“In the Middle Ages, the French defined love as a ‘derangement of the mind’ that could be cured
by sexual intercourse, either with the loved one or with a different partner.”

Couples wed to make political alliances, to raise capital, to expand the workforce and for a
whole array of practical purposes.

“Too much love was thought to be a real threat to the institution of marriage,” she said in an
interview.

Physical attraction between two people has existed as long as marriage, said Don Herrin, who
teaches a course on family belief systems at the University of Utah. But how that is expressed — or
controlled — varies from culture to culture.

You could say that the biblical Adam and Eve had an arranged marriage — that is, a spouse they
didn’t choose for themselves.

The Bible does speak of love matches, of course, but those are not all monogamous. Think Jacob
and Rachel, and her older sister, Leah. Kings David and Solomon were said to have scores of
wives.

The ideal of love as a primary reason for marriage began to spread in the late 18th century and
early 19th century, partly due to the French and American revolutions. Enlightenment thinkers in
this era were promoting the “right to personal happiness,” Coontz said.

Eventually, the development of a wage-labor economy moved coupling away from economics. Women
didn’t have to depend on their parents’ ability to put up a dowry, and men didn’t have to wait for
their inheritance. Families moved away from farms into urban settings, so they didn’t need so many
children. More options opened up.

That created a sea change for marriage in the mid-19th century, including the possibility of
unions founded on love, Coontz said.

The most “marrying time in American history” was just after World War II, she said, with rising
wages for men and repressive laws and economics for women. “More women could stay at home full
time, while their husbands supported them.”

That era lasted only until the late 1960s and early ’70s, when women began flocking back to the
workforce.

If these
Father Knows Best marriages represented the ideal, said Herrin, why did so many women flee
them in the late 1970s, when no-fault divorce became available?

“Our peak years for divorce were between 1978 and 1980,” he said. “Even now, 67 percent of
divorces are filed by women. I am sobered by that. For a lot of folks, marriage is a better
relationship for guys than women.”

Today, Herrin said, romantic unions have become the ideal, but not all of them are between
heterosexual, married couples with children. Many prefer cohabiting to marriage and do not plan to
produce offspring.

Unlike in earlier eras, these days Cupid’s arrow — the ineffable nature of attraction — is
considered essential to finding a partner. You don’t have to have the approval of family, faith or
society. You can write your own promises, make your own money and chart your own future.

That’s the easier part, Herrin said. Making it last as a satisfying partnership is tougher.